If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Ody I respect you greatly, you are very concise and intelligent and our Army is very fortunate to have you but that being said the republican brand name has been tarnished by the very party (and by outsiders as well) demographically conservatives are dying breed (much to this countries sorrow) I really hope you are right though

In this case, it's not simply about being conservatives. Even the RINOs see that they have been screwed over, and they are going to close ranks over this. They consider themselves part of the senate "club" and they've just been snubbed in an extremely humiliating manner. The various "Gang of..." Republicans who've put themselves out to prevent just this kind of thing when the Democrats were in the minority are going to remember this when Reid demands that they give him back what he took from them.

This, he lobbies for? He couldn't be bothered to let his State Department sign off on a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which resulted in the complete loss of everything that we fought for, and he can't be bothered to check in and see the progress on his signature achievement, but he can fight for this? Somebody needs to schedule more tee times for him. The country is better off when he's on the golf course.

If Conservatives are a dying breed as you claim...explain 2010? And while you're at it explain why there is a bigger fight among establishment Republicans to quash Conservatives than there is to stop Democrats?

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2

I know you don't believe me, but I really did vote Republican in 2010. I doubt I was the only one who isn't tea party like who did that. I'm not a fiscal conservative. I just thought that there needed to be some balance to some of Obama's spending and nanny state mentality (nanny state example: Making cigarette companies change how they labeled their cigarettes from saying what they were to just a color). But then, the Republicans did things that I concluded was going too far, so I mostly voted Democrat in 2012.

But to answer your question, no, everybody who voted Republican in 2010 was not conservative.

It’s no secret that President Obama was behind the push to end the filibuster as a means of blocking nominees for U.S. appeals court judgeships. At a fundraiser earlier this month, he told liberal donors that he is “remaking the courts.”

Recognizing that the filibuster stood in the way of a full radical makeover, Obama personally lobbied three Democratic Senators who were undecided about whether to eliminate it. Obama reportedly told them “how important this was to him and our ability to get anything done for the rest of the term.”

The White House stressed the need to confirm three new judges for the D.C. Circuit, which rules on a wide swath of regulatory issues. Stymied by Congress, Obama plans to push his left-wing agenda through regulatory overreach. He needs liberal judges to prevent the resulting rules from being overturned.

Now he will have three of them on the D.C. Circuit. Obama’s mission for Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pollard, and Robert Wilkins could not be more clear. No one should doubt that they will carry it out. The left never screws up this sort of thing.

One consequence of ending the filibuster under these circumstances is to demonstrate just how much law has become politics by other means. And a consequence of that demonstration is to further undermine the public’s trust in the judiciary and, ultimately, the law.

On balance, I consider this a good thing. Why? Because much of the important stuff that federal appeals courts do is, indeed, politics by other means, and the public needs to understand this. The more that federal judges lose their mystique, the more that realism is enhanced. The more that judicial decisions in important controversial cases are understood as ideologically driven, the better....

President Barack Obama has made it official: he’s “remaking the courts.”

At a private fundraiser for liberal Democratic donors at a DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) event on Nov. 6, Obama said, “we are remaking the courts.”

Only presidents nominate judges to the three levels of the federal judiciary: 94 district courts (for trials), the 13 circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court. Thus, every president makes a very significant impact on the third branch of government, and those appointments—most especially to the Supreme Court—are a defining aspect of each president’s legacy.

There are serious implications in choosing to say he’s “remaking the courts.” That indicates the President is not just replacing retiring judges with new judges; he is instead fundamentally changing the philosophical balance of the courts.

It’s Obama’s right and prerogative to try to remake the courts. At least he understands the importance of the courts and takes seriously the constitutional power to make judicial appointments. Not all presidents have been as focused on this constitutional duty to staff the entire third branch of the federal government.

Obama is seeking to use that power to advance his far-left vision of what America should be, one in which government plays a central role in people’s lives; with a centrally-planned economy; strict and comprehensive government regulation; the redistribution of wealth through massive economic entitlements; and a militantly secular culture where government dictates truth, defines moral values, and is a pivotal influence on raising the next generation.

President Obama understands that so much of what he wants to accomplish runs afoul of the historical understanding of the limits on federal power and the proper meaning of the Bill of Rights that he can only achieve that agenda if a critical mass of federal judges agree with his idea that the words of the Constitution can be completely redefined (i.e., effectively ignored) to grant such sweeping and transformational power to the federal government. He is seeking to remake the courts to share his philosophy of what the Constitution means to enact his agenda for the entire nation....

This, he lobbies for? He couldn't be bothered to let his State Department sign off on a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which resulted in the complete loss of everything that we fought for, and he can't be bothered to check in and see the progress on his signature achievement, but he can fight for this? Somebody needs to schedule more tee times for him. The country is better off when he's on the golf course.

Our winning will depend on if we can overcome the ilegal voting, Obama has had 5 years now to further currupt the integrity of the ballot, I am pessimistic for good reason.

Obama has had five years to feed the poor with our tax dollars. He also pitched in rent money, utilities, uncontested disability claims and expanded health care that we know as Medicaid. That will buy a lot of votes and continue to buy the ones they already had. No candidate can outspend what Washington DC has already spent to keep these fools in power.